Safe Speed Forums

What a pointless thing to say. Risk without purpose is plain stupid. A pointless journey only contains risk, no gain. Who would do that? Oh, I know, car drivers!



Stop trying to wriggle out of it! If more people used the bus, then a higher number of people would be passing any particular spot, because buses carry more people. This would provide more service, less jams and less risk overall per person-mile travelled.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Pointless or not, the fact remains that a typical bus journey probably involves more pointless miles than one by car, if we must compare the two. So by this criteria we should be encouraging people to drive!

To pedestrians it would mean higher risk, full stop. That was the point of the article as I understood it.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

OK, so what constitutes a pointless journey? Someone just getting in the car, driving around and ending up back where they started. No visits made, no purchases purchased, and no enjoyment of the experience?
Does anyone really do that. Excuses for using the car (as opposed to other modes) may at times be trite and paper-thin, but there's invariably a point to it, no matter how whimsical or superficial it may seem to someone else.

More emotive, unsubstantiated nonsense - something that is becoming your stock-in-trade, BW.

Incidentally, you still haven't come up with a satisfactory explanation as to why you put words in my mouth, apart from an incorrect assumption based on your own perverse logic...... something else you do rather a lot.

You then used my name twice in connection with this incorrect assumption. I'd like a proper resolution to this.

The ABD and SafeSpeed have forgotten to include the number of passengers carried when making their claims about bus safety. This can be done quite easily on any calculator using the numerical operations called multiplication and division.



Then you understand it wrongly. The article is the work of a sad spin doctor who cannot use multiplication and division. To pedestrians, more busses would mean lower risk per traveller - a subtlety that the spin doctor is trying hard to conceal!

To get lower risk, full stop, we’d have to put a full stop to cars and busses. Good for shoe makers!

_________________
I stole this .sig

There are indeed degrees of ‘pointlessness’, as r11co is demonstrating!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Thank you. I will take your resorting to schoolboy sarcasm as an indication that you have now run out of logical arguments, yes?

I'll say once more: from the perspective of a pedestrian about to be mown down by a bus, the number of passengers it carries is of no relevance whatsoever.


There's no spin at all. The article accurately protrays the increased risk to pedestrians posed by buses as compared to cars.

It may well be that the risk to passengers is reduced when travelling by bus compared to travelling by car (though I doubt it, given their lack of primary and secondary safety features) but that falls outside the scope of this debate, which was about pedestrian risk.

_________________
CSCP Latin for beginners...
Ticketo ergo sum : I scam therefore I am!

This is an opportunity to raise Malthus from his grave once more. It seems to me that, putting risk to one side for a moment, the purpose of any journey must be matched by it's cost, it terms of time and comfort, and the price, or dollar cost.

A journey that costs a bit, such as a bus journey, which costs a bit more, takes a longer time and offers less comfort than a car journey, would need a strong purpose to make it worthwhile. A car journey, on the other hand, which costs a little less, takes less time and offers more comfort than a car journey, would need a weak purpose to make it worthwhile. And that is what we see - people with weak purpose, making excuses to go out in their cars, then complaining that the roads are clogged. The nerve of some people!

Now, if we lower the cost of a bus journey and make it more comfy, and give it a special lane so it is quick, and raise the cost of a car journey, the roads will not be clogged and people can get about if they need to (e.g. work), while people with weak purpose (e.g. indebted shopperholics/slaves to consumerism) can get some exercise. A double gain, without dipping into the taxpayers wallet!

_________________
I stole this .sig

Makes me think of the 'Vulture' aspect of my job.

There is always a point to a journey, whether it's simply to let off steam or get out of the house for an hour or two.

Problem is that in my experience this is never a good time to take to the car. Often your sense of responsibility has temporarily vanished. Often the driver is drunk.

Then we get a call from Mr or Mrs anonymous who in a fit of peak or perverse social responsibility, calls us to say that their partner has left after a domestic dusturbance and is driving drunk.

We can't, shouldn't and don't ignore this.

They are probably among our most dangerous drivers.

They are also our easiest pickings.

But in many cases I can't help feeling a bit sorry for the driver.

_________________
Fixed ideas are like cramp, for instance in the foot, yet the best remedy is to step on them.

Ian

No way, I toned it down out of deference to you!



I suppose depends on one’s philosophy. A catholic, who is confessororially up to date and assured of a place in heaven, might see that more public good comes of laying down his life for the convenience of many, rather than for the convenience of a single selfish driver! But of course, it is NOT possible to be consulted about one’s preferences, and so your question is yet another investigation of pointlessness! If it has no relevance whatsoever, why are you making such a fuss about it? On the other hand, the total number of passengers carried is of extreme relevance to the road safety question, because the risk you tolerate depends on the gains you make.

_________________
I stole this .sig

You patronising git! There are degrees of crassness and arrogance too!



Once again I will ask - either explain why you accredited me (3 times) with a belief based purely on assumption in order to inflame an argument I wasn't involved in, or accept you were mistaken in your assumption.

The following quote is your opinion based on your interpretation, how dare you attribute your prejudices to me!

By way of an experimental moderation attempt...

I am declaring 'modal shift' as strictly off topic in this thread.

Naturally you people should feel free to discuss 'modal shift' in a new topic (such a new topic would belong in 'General Chat'.

The subject of this thread is road safety and we will not be discussing the road safety side effects of modal shift.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I’m sorry, then. But look, you used the term Hmmmm. I use Hmmm when I mean that I disagree.



Well, explain yourself – what does Hmmm mean? Are you guilty of making a little ‘wiggle room’ for yourself? Does it mean that you agree with me or disagree with me. I admit I was giving it a little spin, but only to wheedle out the truth.

_________________
I stole this .sig

Don't tar me with your filthy brush.

My post stands as it is, but there is no point in explaining to you what was intended as you have since dismissed the posted link as "propaganda" then formed your own conclusions. I'm not taking the risk with you again.

It might be time to lock this topic as it seems to have degenerated into a slanging match

_________________
"Show me someone who says that they have never exceeded a speed limit, and I'll show you a liar, or a menace." (Austin Williams - Director, Transport Research Group)

Any views expressed in this post are personal opinions and may not represent the views of Safe Speed

I'm hoping we can get it back on track. If it doesn't work, I'll take your advice and lock it. Thanks.

I'm also declaring 'slanging' as off topic!

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

To be fair to r11co on this, basingwerk does seem to be more than usually antagonistic in this thread. I agree with r11co that basingwerk is putting words into his mouth that were not only never uttered but were never even inferred. I think I would have been just as angry (in fact I've had exactly the same reaction to a basingwerk post in the past!).

This whole slanging match can be ended by basingwerk apologising for misrepresenting r11co's comments. Over to you BW.

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.

As it happens, I agree completely.

Nevertheless, we should all normally be able to resolve such issues without resorting to 'slanging'. Don't get me wrong - sometimes a bit of slanging is unavoidable. That's OK - but I'm calling a halt on this occasion.

_________________
Paul Smith
Our scrap speed cameras petition got over 28,000 sigs
The Safe Speed campaign demands a return to intelligent road safety

I've said sorry once already, Serge. But just to make it really clear, here is some more. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. I'm sorry.

_________________
I stole this .sig

That's very big of you basingwerk (that was not meant to be in the slightest bit sarcastic by the way).

R11co, apology accepted?

(Bloody hell, I think I've turned into Marjorie Proops!)

_________________
If nothing else works, then a total pig-headed unwillingness to look facts in the face will see us through.